[-empyre-] Ingrid Bachmann's intro: c

[renate ferro]

>Hello Ingrid,
>
>I find intriguing when you question if Mexico is exempt from this 
>cultural condition
>of the amnesiac quality of the technosphere. I want to thank you for 
>bringing out
>this doubt of yours, because it was a theme of discussion at the 
>symposium of the
>Festival I recently directed ( http://transitiomx.net ), and so, I 
>don´t want to
>miss the opportunity to discuss this with you, to see if I find 
>deeper answers.
>
>I don´t have a clear answer, but the condition is certainly diferent 
>because of the
>relationship we (Mexicans) have with technology. There are two main reasons:
>
>1. We´re consumers of technology.
>2. Access.
>
>Unlike in science, technology, economics and politics, areas in 
>which Mexico has a
>poor projection, Mexican arts and literature are strong and have a 
>powerful, unique
>identity. This is one of the few areas in which we´re not conceived 
>(inwards and
>outwards) as a developing country. This is important because art is 
>perceived as the
>thing that we produce.
>
>The fact that we don´t produce the technology makes a big difference 
>in comparison
>to countries like Japan, Canada or USA. Our relationship with 
>technology is still
>very flirtatious because its still strange, especially to high end technology.
>Because we are a colonized country, we don´t mind not to produce, we 
>play with its
>seductiveness and are aware of the "dangers" of this seduction. 
>That´s why somehow
>we can make mature pieces of technological art, but their maturity 
>is reflected on
>the discourse more than on the actual technology used.
>In a way we see technology as a consumer´s product and not as the 
>product of our
>effort.This brings benefits and problems. I will start with the benefits:
>
>Most Mexican new media artists work with technology as a tool. Art 
>is made with
>tools (electronic media and any kind of technology is conceived as 
>one more tool,
>like a brush, or a camera). A common argument is that a photographer 
>doesn´t become
>a better artist if he actually constructs the camera....
>
>Many others work with technology as a medium. Art can talk about 
>anything, including
>the tool or the actual medium. The possibilities of the technology 
>are directly
>related to the possibilities of production, but not of its 
>perception or message.
>Artists can produce electronic art without electronic technology. 
>The fact that an
>artist has no acces to high end technology doesn´t mean he can´t be 
>profound on the
>creation of discourses on technology.
>
>Acces:
>
>The work produced is still related to real life because of 
>restricted access. You´ll
>find the work here tends to be less abstract and less self 
>referential. I consider
>this a benefit because the technology changes in such a vertiginous 
>way that there´s
>very little point on making an effort to look for escential meanings 
>of the medium
>when it´s so ephemeral in nature. In a way it is disposable...
>
>However, access is still the main problem, not because technology is needed to
>produce art , but because it gives the security of having options. 
>In a certain way,
>artists still work with whatever is at hand, but the feeling of not 
>having choice
>makes them insequre in terms of decissions. But that is changing 
>rapidly. It hasn´t
>been a real problem in terms of production.
>
>So we probably don´t have that condition yet. There is still a large 
>number of young
>people who are not "native" to technology yet. That doesn´t happen 
>in Canada and the
>US. Although young people have more access that us (I belong to the "migrant"
>generation) the reality is that a big number of them are not natives of the
>technosphere..
>
>When you question: "What does it mean when we delegate the faculty 
>of memory to a
>machine? when our body is outside of the process?"
>Somehow I find it implies that although we´re  producing memory,  we are also
>producing oblivion. My feeling is that we produce both 
>simoultaneously. We indeed
>delegate the faculty of  body and its capability of  memory to the 
>machine.I find
>realy interesting how we both share the preocupation, but present 
>them from diferent
>perspectives. Perhaps is due to the reasons I gave in this very 
>large (sorry I'll
>try to keep them short the following days) mail
>
>The term used by Tim Prosthetic amnesia in a way depicts and merges, 
>with his usual
>wit, both perspectives of our preocupation about disembodiment.
>
>
>I also have some comments on the other themes you brought up, but 
>will send them
>later...
>
>Good night for now
>
>Grace
>_______________________________________________
>empyre forum
>empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
>http://www.subtle.net/empyre


-- 
Timothy Murray
Professor of Comparative Literature and English
Director of Graduate Studies in Film and Video
Curator, The Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art, Cornell Library
http://goldsen.library.cornell.edu
285 Goldwin Smith Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York  14853

office: 607-255-4086
e-mail: tcm1 at cornell.edu